Debate contribution: Domestic and Sexual Abuse Small Grant Scheme
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 29 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Domestic and Sexual Abuse Small Grant Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4922065
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Organisations across all regions of Northern Ireland have benefited from the support provided through the scheme. The initiatives have wide-ranging impacts, as I have set out, and offer vital assistance to men, women and children who are affected by domestic and sexual abuse. The scheme has enabled some front-line services to deliver practical, emotional, preventative and therapeutic support that has made a difference to the lives of individuals and families. Earlier this month, I had the privilege of visiting a Women's Aid refuge in Ballymena to see first-hand the valuable work that is being delivered through its Family First programme, which is supported by the scheme. That programme plays a vital role in offering early interventions for women and children affected by domestic abuse across the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area. It supports mothers in identifying and building on their strengths, developing tailored family support plans and gaining a deeper understanding of how abuse has impacted on their children. Children, in turn, receive therapeutic support in a safe, nurturing environment in which they can begin to process their experiences and build emotional resilience. It was really uplifting to see the positive impact that the programme is having on families and to hear the improved outcomes for the young people who have had that additional contact and support. I look forward to visiting other initiatives that are funded through the scheme to see the broader reach of what I believe to be important work.
245 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.38 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.77 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.22 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:28 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.